About your Search

20140226
20140306
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
to gays and lesbians for religions. it was supposed to be a safeguard tore religion but it is too divisive. >> i believe the bill has the potential th potential to cause more problems than solve problems. >> the bill drew vocal criticism from civic leaders business interests and state economic groups. >>> two members of former new england patriot eric hernandez's entourage is due in court today. hernandez fiancee was indicted on charges of perjury. she has treated not guilty. carlos or tease wegon ortiz wi appear today. he pleaded not guilty to accessory charges. hernandez is awaiting trial after also pleading not guilty. >> the road rage assault case will be back in court today. the detective is scheduled for a control hearing in new york. he's pleaded not guilty to gang assault charges in connection with a man being pulled from his suv and beaten in front of his family. >>> there will be no bags allowed at the boston marathon this year. officers are stepping up security after last year's deadly bombing. i a attackers used backpacks this year. runners will be allowed to check gear but ev
to gays or people of religions that do things they don't agree with. several state senators regret their vote for this bill but one republican is still supporting this. >> they are free agents. felt if they have responded to all of the pressure, it has been intense, that is okay. they are all good friends of mine. steve pierce voted for this bill but now he is ptelling the governor he hopes she vetoes it. how do you respond to your colleague that says you and others have caved on this bill? >> he is a good friend. we have not caved. we had reservations at the beginning and we saw the outcry and realized it wasn't right. >> the bill says a business owner, church owner or coperation can deny service if motivated by religious belief if it burdens their belief. what did afraid would happen? >> it has gone from reality into perception and what is perceived is overriding of the bill. perception is it is a bad and going to be specific to gays. we didn't intend it that way. my colleague and i never thought it would be like that but that is the perception and horrible for the damage it is g
's rights to exercise religion freely and not about being anti- gay at all. >> they have determined somehow that the bill is something that it is not and we have moved in the world of perception as opposed to the world of reality. >> there was a bill similar to that last year to get changes to it that the governor vetoed last year. there is some pres dept here. >> does she need to make it by saturday? >> here's the thing. she doesn't have to make a decision at all. and it would be a law by saturday. but officially she has to make it by saturday. we believe that she is going to make a decision. >> everyone is waiting on that. >> and there is a new push to get to the bottom of the irs targeting scandal. the powerful house committee trying to get a central player to answer the question. >> i have been advised by the council to not to testify or questions related to the subject matter. >> is this getting lois lerner back on the hill? >> it is a top warning about planning for a full withdrawal in afghanistan. how it could encourage the enemy and there is this. >> that is on board of a school bus
of behavior do you think they could get away with, based on religion? i mean, what we're talking about here is an amendment to an existing law that has been in place since 1999. it simply is closing -- well, not really a loophole, but court interpretation. it was originally passed as when you were an individual and went into a business or marketplace, you don't lose your religious freedoms, but some courts have interpreted that. but they also put in place a test that would prove, you have to prove you have the basis for your religious objection. >> a lot of people ignored that. you couldn't just go out and -- and make up a religious belief. let me ask you this, folks on the other side this is what this bill was, the modern-day equivalent of you can deny services of blacks who want to marry whites. blacks that used to get together, that used to be against the bible, against god's teaching. that was outlawed for three centuries and was not deemed illegal to do so to discriminate against blacks and whites who want to marry until 1867. and folks opposed to it said this is the modern-day equival
on religion or race or anything. we have to routes is out and make sure this doesn't ever happen again. people don't feel like it can happen. recommendations are an important part of that. we look forward to additional recommendations. the second topic, has come up today, what is the irs doing to ensure that it has better resources with taxpayer concerns to ensure the phone is being picked up and the chair made the comment, your data, the responses are pretty weak. and i would like to maybe turns this, not enough people to answer all the questions or concerns taxpayers have court is the problem that the code is so cumbersome and riddled with exemptions and loopholes and problems that average everyday working americans could possibly attempts to figure out as they hire accountants and lawyers and we have 4 million words in this code and it grows by the second with the regulatory side as well. the problem we need more people to answer the problems americans have with the code or the problem is the code itself? >> it is all of the above. i will defer to ms. olson in a moment but it is a 0 sum gam
of religion, clash of rights. here's how i answer dan. 50 years ago this day in one of surely the great legislative achievements in american history we passed the public accommodation section of the civil rights act saying if you open your doors to business in the united states you open it to everybody. that's a subtle issue. and the prestige of that law that just was obtained and i think that's where the mesh american people come down. it's a funny kind of sore winner in the gay rights movement that would say a photographer doesn't want to photograph my wedding. i have lots of other photographers i could go to. i'm going to use the hammer of government to force them to do this. it's not neighborly and it's not nice. the gay rights movement is winning. they should be, as i say, not sore winners. >> but having said that, i understand your point. you do say that if a gay couple wants to go into a bakery and have a wedding cake, the bakery should have to make cake. >> bake the cake. >> bake the cake. senator brown? you're thoughts on this? >> i thought what governor brewer did was appropri
versus gay right? >> free exercise of religion. the clash of rights. 50 years ago this year in one of the surely the great legislative freedoms of american history we passed the civil rights act. if you open your doors in the united states, you open it to everybody. that's the subtle issue. the procedure of that law has been obtain and i think that's where the american people come down. that said, it's a funny kind of sore winner in the gay rights movement that would say a photographer doesn't want to photograph my weddingin. but i've got lots of other photographers but i'm going to use the hammer of government to force them do this. it's not neighborly and it's not gay rights. they should be not sore winners. >> i understand that, having understood your point, you do say if a gay couple wants to go into a bakery and have a wedding cake, the bakery should have to bake the cake. >> bake the cake. >> senator brown, your thoughts on that? >> i thought it was appropriate for governor brewer to veto the law. there are both people on both sides of the very difficult issue. debt, spending
gays. it could not be further than that. people need to be able to exercise their religion freely in our state. >> adam housely has the latest. >> even the governor herself is calling the bill controversial. she returned home to a fire storm in arizona and tweeted out she is going to do the right for arizona. the republican lawmaker will go over it with the legislation and talk about the bill. it allows business owners to not serve or cooperate with customers. it is being seen mostly as as an anti-gay bill. american airlines, apple and other businesses are urging her to veto. the nfl hosting the super bowl and weighing in and the host committee said it would deal a significant blow to the economic growth potential and all sorts of heavy weights coming out against this. governor mccain is urging for a veto. and several lawmakers who pushed it through changed their mind >> we had reservations at the beginni beginning. we saw how it would damage to state and decided it wasn't right and we made a mistake. >> reporter: the bill's authors are saying their intention is being misconstrued
and ice of russia. bill: mike religioners is said putin is running circles around the united states. what do you expect him to do? >> well, i think the president needs to significantly change the u.s. policy. he is based the policy on russia when they feel more secure causes the world to feel more secure, actually what we're seeing the reverse. when russia feels more secure they tend to be more adventurese. that is certainly what we see playing out in the ukraine today. >> so what does our president do? >> well there's a couple of things the president can do. he one, can strengthen our ties with nato. he is exposed to expansion of nato that left ukraine, georgia, montenegro on hold. he could move forward with strengthening those ties. he could move to allow export of u.s. natural gas currently russia has a grip on europe where they are beholden to russia where they use it in the geopolitical leverage tool box. we can by entering into the opportunity to do that export and make a difference economically and have our al like some additional freedom. bill: there is a statement made by gentlem
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)